Aboriginal Victorians Act: The Practical Reality.

Here is an example of the corrupt Anglo-Masonic legal system doing what it wants, above it's designated powers and in opposition to the results of the referendum:

In recent years, Victoria has taken bold steps toward recognising Aboriginal sovereignty within the state through the establishment of the First Peoples’ Assembly and the enactment of the Statewide Treaty Act 2025. The legislation empowers the Assembly to negotiate both statewide and local treaties with the Victorian government, to advise on policy and legislative initiatives, and, in some cases, approve treaty frameworks before government action can proceed. While hailed as a historic move toward self determination for Aboriginal Victorians, the Act has profound practical and constitutional implications, particularly for the powers of the state Parliament and the rule of law.

It appears that, once again, the voice of division has raised its  ugly head in the State of Victoria, despite the Australian people having clearly said no to a two tier system of government based on race.

 A Shift in Parliamentary and Executive Power;   Traditionally, Victoria’s Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council exercised full discretion over policy, legislation, and the implementation of programs affecting Aboriginal communities. Ministers of the Crown could propose laws, oversee their execution, and make administrative decisions without statutory requirement to consult any representative Aboriginal body. The enactment of the Treaty Act fundamentally alters this dynamic.

Under the new law, ministers and the executive must consult the Assembly on any policies, legislation, or appointments affecting Aboriginal communities. For some local treaties, the Assembly’s sign off is mandatory before the government may proceed. In effect, the Assembly now acts as a statutory gatekeeper: while Parliament retains formal sovereignty and could theoretically amend or repeal the legislation, the day to day operation of government has been materially constrained. Ministers cannot act unilaterally in areas previously within their discretion, and legislative drafting, policy planning, and Cabinet deliberation now proceed in an environment where Aboriginal voices are legally integrated into the decision-making process.

This practical shift has been described as a “de facto diminishment” of executive discretion, and by extension, an indirect impact on the operational power of the Parliament itself. While formal legal supremacy remains, the Assembly’s statutory role effectively reshapes the landscape of governance in Aboriginal affairs.

 Constitutional Considerations ~ Chapter III and the Rule of Law; The Treaty Act raises significant constitutional questions when considered in light of the Australian Constitution, particularly Chapter III, which governs judicial power. The rule of law is a foundational principle: laws should apply equally to all, and judicial determinations must be made by courts, not legislative or executive bodies.

Potential tension arises if the Assembly’s advice or treaty negotiations include recommendations that certain Aboriginal Victorians be exempted from particular laws. While the Assembly can advise, negotiate, and approve treaty frameworks, it cannot itself confer legal exemptions or displace the courts’ role in determining rights and liabilities. Doing so would constitute an impermissible delegation of judicial power, violating Chapter III and undermining the rule of law.

The legislation walks a fine line. In practice, the Assembly wields enormous influence, shaping policies, treaties, and program design. Yet, it remains a statutory body, and any attempt to create legally enforceable exemptions outside Parliament’s legislation would be unconstitutional. Its power is thus practical and procedural, not judicial or sovereign.

 Practical v Legal Power;   The Treaty Act exemplifies the distinction between formal legal authority and practical operation. Parliament remains supreme on paper, but ministers and government departments cannot implement treaty related policies without Assembly involvement. Some local treaties cannot advance without Assembly approval. In effect, the executive’s discretion is constrained in a way it never was before, altering the internal operation of Parliament and Cabinet, and reshaping the political and procedural landscape.

This “practical diminishment” represents a profound innovation, it enshrines Aboriginal input in governance, embedding self determination into the machinery of the state. Yet, it does so within the legal boundaries of statutory authority, respecting Parliament’s ultimate supremacy and the federal constitutional framework.

Restructuring the Westminster System in Victoria;   Victoria’s parliamentary system is traditionally rooted in the Westminster model, which relies on a clear hierarchy and separation between the legislature, the executive, and the Crown:

1. Parliament (Legislative Assembly and Council): drafts, debates, and enacts laws.

2. Executive (Cabinet and Ministers): implements laws and sets policy, accountable to Parliament.

3. Rule of law and judicial independence: courts apply the law equally to all people within its jurisdiction.

The Treaty Act introduces a statutory intermediary, the First Peoples Assembly that exercises practical, binding influence over policy, treaty negotiations, and in some cases local law-making frameworks. This has several effects on the Westminster model in Victoria ~

Redefining Ministerial Discretion: Ministers are now legally required to consult and often secure approval from the Assembly before acting on treaties, policies, or appointments affecting Aboriginal communities. This shifts decision making from the executive to a shared statutory process.

Altering Parliamentary Procedure: Bills or policy proposals impacting Aboriginal affairs now cannot be considered in isolation by Parliament, they must account for Assembly input, effectively creating a procedural checkpoint outside traditional Cabinet or committee structures.

Embedding an Independent Advisory Actor: The Assembly operates outside the party political framework but holds binding influence in certain treaty contexts, creating a hybrid structure that is neither purely legislative nor executive, yet materially constrains both.

In effect, the hierarchical flow of decision making in the Victorian Westminster system is ~ Parliament proposes & Cabinet executes, this process has been interrupted and redistributed. While formal sovereignty remains with Parliament, the practical day to day operation of government is now contingent on a statutory Aboriginal institution, reshaping the foundational dynamics of Victoria’s democratic governance.

Victoria’s Treaty Act represents a radical reconfiguration of governance, It diminishes the practical discretion of the executive, requiring consultation, negotiation, and, in some cases, approval from the Assembly. It indirectly alters the operation of Parliament, as legislative proposals in Aboriginal affairs must navigate this new statutory layer.

It restructures the Westminster system in Victoria by embedding a powerful, independent statutory body outside traditional party and executive structures,  a move unprecedented in Australian state politics. Constitutional principles, especially Chapter III separation of judicial power and the rule of law, remain intact legally, but the Act tests the boundaries of delegation and influence in ways that have real world implications for governance.

Victoria has created a hybrid model that is neither purely Westminster nor purely statutory, but a unique fusion   a statutory Aboriginal institution with binding influence over treaties and policy, integrated into the state’s democratic framework. The Assembly cannot yet overturn laws or confer legal exemptions, but it controls the pathways through which policies and treaties become operational, creating a profound and permanent shift in the structure of government in Victoria.

Is this simply another blatant example of a State doing indirectly what the Commonwealth could not do directly after the Australian people had spoken in the Voice referendum of 2023?

Source:supplied